THE UNCOVERING OF THE NINTH VEIL: CONCERNING COMPANIONSHIP, TOGETHER
WITH ITS RULES AND PRINCIPLES.
The Apostle said: “Good manners (_ḥusn al-adab_) are a part of faith.”
And he also said: “My Lord corrected me (_addabaní_) and gave me an
excellent correction.” You must know that the seemliness and decorum of
all religious and temporal affairs depends on rules of discipline
(_ádáb_), and that every station in which the various classes of mankind
are placed has its own particular rule. Among men good manners consist
in the observance of virtue (_muruwwat_); as regards religion they
consist in the observance of the Apostolic custom (_sunna_); and as
regards love they consist in the observance of respect (_ḥurmat_). These
three categories are connected with each other, because one who is
without virtue does not comply with the custom of the Apostle, and
whoever fails to comply with the custom of the Apostle does not observe
due respect. In matters of conduct the observance of discipline is the
result of reverence for the object of desire; and reverence for God and
His ordinances springs from fear of God (_taqwá_). Anyone who
disrespectfully tramples on the reverence that is due to the evidences
of God has no part or lot in the Path of Ṣúfiism; and in no case are
rules of discipline neglected by seekers of God, because they are
habituated to such rules, and habit is second nature. It is impossible
that a living creature should be divested of its natural humours:
therefore, so long as the human body remains in existence men are bound
to keep the rules of obedience to God, sometimes with effort
(_takalluf_) and sometimes without effort: with effort when they are
‘sober’, but when they are ‘intoxicated’ God sees that they keep the
rules. A person who neglects the rules cannot possibly be a saint, for
“good manners are characteristic of those whom God loves”. When God
vouchsafes a miracle to anyone, it is a proof that He causes him to
fulfil the duties of religion. This is opposed to the view of some
heretics, who assert that when a man is overpowered by love he is no
longer subject to obedience. I will set forth this matter more lucidly
in another place.
Rules of discipline are of three kinds. Firstly, those which are
observed towards God in unification (_tawḥíd_). Here the rule is that
one must guard one’s self in public and private from any disrespectful
act, and behave as though one were in the presence of a king. It is
related in the genuine Traditions that one day the Apostle was sitting
with his legs drawn in (_páy gird_). Gabriel came and said: “O Muḥammad,
sit as servants do in their master’s presence.” Ḥárith Muḥásibí is said
never to have leaned his back against a wall, by day or night, for forty
years, and never to have sat except on his knees. On being asked why he
gave himself so much trouble he replied: “I am ashamed to sit otherwise
than as a servant while I am contemplating God.” I, `Alí b. `Uthmán
al-Jullábí, was once in a village called Kamand,[164] at the extremity
of Khurásán. There I saw a well-known and very excellent man, whose name
is Adíb-i Kamandí. For twenty years he had never sat down except in his
prayers, when he was pronouncing the profession of faith. I inquired the
reason of this, and he answered that he had not yet attained such a
degree that he should sit while contemplating God. Abú Yazíd was asked
by what means he had gained so high spiritual rank. He answered: “By
good companionship with God,” i.e. by keeping the rules of discipline
and behaving in private as in public. All human beings ought to learn
from Zulaykhá how to observe good manners in contemplating the object of
their adoration, for when she was alone with Joseph and besought him to
consent to her wishes, she first covered up the face of her idol in
order that it might not witness her want of propriety. And when the
Apostle was borne to Heaven at the Ascension, his observance of
discipline restrained him from paying any regard either to this world or
to the next.
Footnote 164:
Kumand, according to _Nafaḥát_, No. 379.
The second kind of discipline is that which is observed towards one’s
self in one’s conduct, and which consists in avoiding, when one is in
one’s own company, any act that would be improper in the company of
one’s fellow-creatures or of God, e.g., one must not utter an untruth by
declaring one’s self to be what one is not, and one must eat little in
order that one may seldom go to the lavatory, and one must not look at
anything which it is not decent for others to see. It is related that
`Alí never beheld his own nakedness, because he was ashamed to see in
himself what he was forbidden to see in others.
The third kind of discipline is that which is observed in social
intercourse with one’s fellow-creatures. The most important rule for
such intercourse is to act well, and to observe the custom of the
Apostle at home and abroad.
These three sorts of discipline cannot be separated from one another.
Now I will set them forth in detail as far as possible, in order that
you and all my readers may follow them more easily.
_Chapter on Companionship and matters connected therewith._
God hath said: “_Verily, the merciful God will bestow love on those who
believe and do good works_” (Kor. xix, 96), i.e., He will love them and
cause them to be loved, because they do their duty towards their
brethren and prefer them to themselves. And the Apostle said: “Three
things render thy brother’s love toward thee sincere: that thou shouldst
salute him when thou meetest him, and that thou shouldst make room for
him when he sits beside thee, and that thou shouldst call him by the
name that he likes best.” And God said, “_The believers are brethren:
therefore reconcile your two brethren_” (Kor. xlix, 10); and the Apostle
said, “Get many brethren, for your Lord is bashful (_ḥayí_) and kind: He
will be ashamed to punish His servant in the presence of his brethren on
the Day of Resurrection.”
But companionship must be for God’s sake, not for the purpose of
gratifying the lower soul or any selfish interest, in order that a man
may be divinely rewarded for observing the rules of companionship. Málik
b. Dínár said to his son-in-law, Mughíra b. Shu`ba: “If you derive no
religious benefit from a brother and friend, abandon his society, that
you may be saved,” i.e. associate either with one who is superior or
with one who is inferior to yourself. In the former case you will derive
benefit from him, and in the latter case the benefit will be mutual,
since each will learn something from the other. Hence the Apostle said,
“It is the whole of piety to instruct one who is ignorant;” and Yaḥyá b.
Mu`ádh (al-Rází) said, “He is a bad friend to whom you need to say,
‘Remember me in thy prayers’” (because a man ought always to pray for
anyone with whom he has associated even for a moment); and he is a bad
friend with whom you cannot live except on condition of flattering him
(because candour is involved in the principle of companionship); and he
is a bad friend to whom you need to apologize for a fault that you have
committed (because apologies are made by strangers, and in companionship
it is wrong to be on such terms). The Apostle said: “A man follows the
religion of his friend: take heed, therefore, with whom you form a
friendship.” If he associates with the good, their society will make him
good, although he is bad; and if he associates with the wicked, he will
be wicked, although he is good, because he will be consenting to their
wickedness. It is related that a man said, while he was circumambulating
the Ka`ba, “O God, make my brethren good!” On being asked why he did not
implore a boon for himself in such a place, he replied: “I have brethren
to whom I shall return; if they are good, I shall be good with them, and
if they are wicked, I shall be wicked with them.”
The Ṣúfí Shaykhs demand from each other the fulfilment of the duties of
companionship and enjoin their disciples to require the same, so that
amongst them companionship has become like a religious obligation. The
Shaykhs have written many books explaining the rules of Ṣúfí
companionship; e.g., Junayd composed a work entitled _Taṣḥíḥ
al-irádat_,[165] and Aḥmad b. Khaḍrúya of Balkh another, entitled
_Al-Ri`áyat bi-ḥuqúq_[166] _Allah_,[167] and Muḥammad b. `Alí of Tirmidh
another, entitled _Ádáb al-murídín_.[168] Other exhaustive treatises on
this subject have been written by Abu ´l-Qásim al-Ḥakím,[169] Abú Bakr
al-Warráq, Sahl b. `Abdalláh (al-Tustarí), Abú `Abd al-Raḥmán al-Sulamí,
and Master Abu ´l-Qásim Qushayrí. All those writers are great
authorities on Ṣúfiism, but I desire that my book should enable anyone
who possesses it to dispense with other books and, as I said in the
preface, be sufficient in itself for you and for all students of the
Ṣúfí doctrine. I will now classify in separate chapters their various
rules of discipline relating to conduct.
Footnote 165:
“The Rectification of Discipleship.”
Footnote 166:
So all the texts, instead of the correct _li-ḥuqúq_.
Footnote 167:
“The Observance of what is due to God.”
Footnote 168:
“Rules of Conduct for Disciples.”
Footnote 169:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 129.
_Chapter concerning the Rules of Companionship._
Since you have perceived that the most important thing for the novice is
companionship, the fulfilment of its obligations is necessarily
incumbent on him. Solitude is fatal to the novice, for the Apostle said,
“Satan is with the solitary, but he is farther away from two who are
together;” and God hath said, “_There is no private discourse among
three persons but God is the fourth of them_” (Kor. lviii, 8). I have
read in the Anecdotes that a disciple of Junayd imagined that he had
attained to the degree of perfection, and that it was better for him to
be alone. Accordingly he went into retirement and withdrew from the
society of his brethren. At nightfall a camel used to appear, and he was
told that it would take him to Paradise; on mounting it, he was conveyed
to a pleasant demesne, with beautiful inhabitants and delicious viands
and flowing streams, where he stayed till dawn; then he fell asleep, and
on waking found himself at the door of his cell. These experiences
filled him with pride and he could not refrain from boasting of them.
When Junayd heard the story he hastened to the disciple’s cell, and
having received from him a full account of what had passed, said to him:
“To-night, when you come to that place, remember to say thrice, ‘There
is no strength or power but in God, the High, the Great.’” The same
night he was carried off as usual, and though in his heart he did not
believe Junayd, by way of trial he repeated those words thrice. The crew
around him shrieked and vanished, and he found himself seated on a
dunghill in the midst of rotten bones. He acknowledged his fault and
repented and returned to companionship.
The principle of the Ṣúfís in companionship is that they should treat
everyone according to his degree. Thus they treat old men with respect,
like fathers; those of their own sort with agreeable familiarity, like
brothers; and young men with affection, like sons. They renounce hate,
envy, and malice, and do not withhold sincere admonition from anyone. In
companionship it is not permissible to speak evil of the absent, or to
behave dishonestly, or to deny one another on account of any word or
deed, because a companionship which is begun for God’s sake should not
be cut short by human words or acts. The author says: “I asked the Grand
Shaykh Abu ´l-Qásim Gurgání what obligations were involved in
companionship. He replied: ‘It involves this, that you should not seek
your own interest; all the evils of companionship arise from
selfishness. Solitude is better for a selfish man. He who neglects his
own interests and looks after the interests of his companion hits the
mark in companionship.’” A certain dervish relates as follows: “Once I
set out from Kúfa to visit Mecca. On the way I met Ibráhím Khawwáṣ and
begged him to let me accompany him. He said: ‘In companionship it is
necessary that one should command and the other should obey: which do
you choose?’ I answered: ‘You be the commander.’ He said: ‘Now do not
fail to comply with my orders.’ When we arrived at the halting-place, he
bade me sit down, and himself drew water from the well and, since the
weather was cold, he gathered sticks and kindled a fire, and whenever I
attempted to do anything he told me to sit down. At nightfall it began
to rain heavily. He took off his patched frock and held it over my head
all night. I was ashamed, but could not say a word on account of the
condition imposed on me. When morning came, I said: ‘To-day it is my
turn to be commander.’ He said: ‘Very well.’ As soon as we reached the
halting-place, he began to perform the same menial offices as before,
and on my telling him not to disobey my orders he retorted that it was
an act of disobedience to let one’s self be served by one’s commander.
He continued to behave in this way until we arrived at Mecca; then I
felt so ashamed that I fled from him. He espied me, however, at Miná and
said to me: ‘O son, when you associate with dervishes see that you treat
them in the same fashion as I treated you.’”
Dervishes are divided into two classes: residents (_muqímán_) and
travellers (_musáfirán_). According to the custom of the Shaykhs, the
travelling dervishes should regard the resident ones as superior to
themselves, because they go to and fro in their own interest, while the
resident dervishes have settled down in the service of God: in the
former is the sign of search, in the latter is the token of attainment;
hence those who have found and settled down are superior to those who
are still seeking. Similarly, the resident dervishes ought to regard the
travelling ones as superior to themselves, because they are laden with
worldly encumbrances, while the travelling dervishes are unencumbered
and detached from the world. Again, old men should prefer to themselves
the young, who are newer to the world and whose sins are less numerous;
and young men should prefer to themselves the old, who have outstripped
them in devotion and service.
SECTION.
Culture (_adab_) really means “the collection of virtuous qualities”,
though in ordinary language anyone is called “cultured” (_adíb_) who is
acquainted with Arabic philology and grammar. But the Ṣúfís define
culture as “dwelling with praiseworthy qualities”, and say that it means
“to act with propriety towards God in public and private”; if you act
thus, you are “cultured”, even if you are a foreigner (i.e. a non-Arab),
and if not, you are the opposite. Those who have knowledge are in every
case more honoured than those who have intelligence. A certain Shaykh
was asked: “What does culture involve?” He said: ”I will answer you by
quoting a definition which I have heard, ‘If you speak, your speech will
be sincere, and if you act, your actions will be true.’ An excellent
distinction has been made by Shaykh Abú Naṣr Sarráj, the author of the
_Luma`_, who says: “As regards culture (_adab_), there are three classes
of mankind. Firstly, worldlings, whose culture mainly consists in
eloquence and rhetoric and learning and knowledge of the nightly
conversations (_asmár_[170]) of kings and Arabic poetry. Secondly, the
religious, whose culture chiefly consists in disciplining the lower soul
and correcting the limbs and observing the legal ordinances and
renouncing lusts. Thirdly, the elect (i.e. the Ṣúfís), whose culture
consists for the most part in spiritual purity and keeping watch over
their hearts and fulfilling their promises and guarding the ‘state’ in
which they are and paying no heed to extraneous suggestions and behaving
with propriety in the positions of search (for God), in the states of
presence (with God), and in the stations of proximity (to God).” This
saying is comprehensive. The different matters which it includes are
discussed in several places in this book.
Footnote 170:
Another reading is _asmá_, “names,” but I find _asmár_ in the MS. of
the _Kitáb al-Luma`_ belonging to Mr. A. G. Ellis, where this passage
occurs on f. 63_a._
_Chapter on the Rules of Companionship affecting Residents._
Dervishes who choose to reside, and not to travel, are bound to observe
the following rules of discipline. When a traveller comes to them, they
must meet him joyfully and receive him with respect and treat him like
an honoured guest and freely set before him whatever food they have,
modelling their behaviour upon that of Abraham. They must not inquire
whence he has come or whither he is going or what is his name, but must
deem that he has come from God and is going to God and that his name is
“servant of God”; then they must see whether he desires to be alone or
in company: if he prefers to be alone, they must give him an empty room,
and if he prefers company, they must consort with him unceremoniously in
a friendly and sociable manner. When he lays his head on his pillow at
night the resident dervish ought to offer to wash his feet, but if the
traveller should not allow him to do this and should say that he is not
accustomed to it, the resident must not insist, for fear of causing him
annoyance. Next day, he must offer him a bath and take him to the
cleanest bath available and save his clothes from (becoming dirty in)
the latrines of the bath, and not permit a strange attendant to wait
upon him, but wait upon him zealously in order to make him clean of all
stains, and scrape (_bikhárad_) his back and rub his knees and the soles
of his feet and his hands: more than this he is not obliged to do. And
if the resident dervish has sufficient means, he should provide a new
garment for his guest; otherwise, he need not trouble himself, but he
should clean his guest’s clothes so that he may put them on when he
comes out of the bath. If the traveller remains two or three days, he
should be invited to visit any spiritual director or Imám who may be in
the town, but he must not be compelled to pay such visits against his
inclination, because those who seek God are not always masters of their
own feelings; e.g., Ibráhím Khawwáṣ on one occasion refused to accompany
Khiḍr, who desired his society, for he was unwilling that his feelings
should be engaged by anyone except God. Certainly it is not right that a
resident dervish should take a traveller to salute worldly men or to
attend their entertainments, sick-beds, and funerals; and if a resident
hopes to make travellers an instrument of mendicancy (_álat-i gadá´í_)
and conduct them from house to house, it would be better for him to
refrain from serving them instead of subjecting them to humiliation.
Among all the troubles and inconveniences that I have suffered when
travelling none was worse than to be carried off time after time by
ignorant servants and impudent dervishes of this sort and conducted from
the house of such and such a Khwája to the house of such and such a
Dihqán, while, though apparently complaisant, I felt a great dislike to
go with them. I then vowed that, if ever I became resident, I would not
behave towards travellers with this impropriety. Nothing derived from
associating with ill-mannered persons is more useful than the lesson
that you must endure their disagreeable behaviour and must not imitate
it. On the other hand, if a travelling dervish becomes at his ease
(_munbasiṭ_) with a resident and stays for some time and makes a worldly
demand, the resident is bound immediately to give him what he wants; but
if the traveller is an impostor and low-minded, the resident must not
act meanly in order to comply with his impossible requirements, for this
is not the way of those who are devoted to God. What business has a
dervish to associate with devotees if he needs worldly things? Let him
go to the market and buy and sell, or let him be a soldier at the
sultan’s court. It is related that, while Junayd and his pupils were
sitting occupied in some ascetic discipline, a travelling dervish came
in. They exerted themselves to entertain him and placed food before him.
He said: “I want such and such a thing besides this.” Junayd said to
him: “You must go to the bazaar, for you are a man of the market, not of
the mosque and the cell.” Once I set out from Damascus with two
dervishes to visit Ibn al-Mu`allá,[171] who was living in the country
near Ramla. On the way we arranged that each of us should think of the
matter concerning which we were in doubt, in order that that venerable
director might tell us our secret thoughts and solve our difficulties. I
said to myself: “I will desire of him the poems and intimate
supplications (_munáját_) of Ḥusayn b. Manṣúr (al-Ḥalláj).” One of my
companions said, “I will desire him to pray that my disease of the
spleen (_ṭiḥál_) may become better;” and the other said, “I will wish
for sweetmeat of different colours” (_ḥalwá-yi ṣábúní_). As soon as we
arrived, Ibn al-Mu`allá commanded that a manuscript of the poems and
supplications of Ḥusayn should be presented to me, and laid his hand on
the belly of the invalid so that his illness was assuaged, and said to
the other dervish: “Parti-coloured sweetmeat is eaten by soldiers
(_`awánán_); you are dressed as a saint, and the dress of a saint does
not accord with the appetite of a soldier. Choose one or the other.”
Footnote 171:
I. Ibn al-`Alá.
In short, the resident is not obliged to pay attention to the travelling
dervish unless the latter’s attention is paid entirely to God. If he is
devoted to his own interests, it is impossible that another should help
him to gratify his selfishness, for dervishes are guides (_ráhbarán_),
not brigands (_ráhburán_), to each other. So long as anyone perseveres
in a selfish demand, his friend ought to resist it, but when he
renounces it, then his friend ought to satisfy it. In the Traditions of
the Apostle it is related that he made a brotherhood between Salmán
(al-Fárisí) and Abú Dharr Ghifárí, both of whom were leading men among
the People of the Veranda (_ahl-i ṣuffa_) and eminent spiritualists. One
day, when Salmán came to visit Abú Dharr at his house, Abú Dharr’s wife
complained to him that her husband neither ate by day nor slept by
night. Salmán told her to fetch some food, and said to Abú Dharr: “O
brother, I desire thee to eat, since this fasting is not incumbent on
thee.” Abú Dharr complied. And at night Salmán said: “O brother, I beg
thee to sleep: thy body and thy wife have a claim upon thee, as well as
thy Lord.” Next day Abú Dharr went to the Apostle, who said: “I say the
same thing as Salmán said yesterday: verily, thy body has a claim upon
thee.” Inasmuch as Abú Dharr had renounced his selfish pleasures, Salmán
persuaded him to gratify them. Whatever you do on this principle is
sound and impregnable. Once, in the territories of `Iráq, I was
restlessly occupied (_tápákí míkardam_) in seeking wealth and
squandering it, and I had run largely into debt. Everyone who wanted
anything turned to me, and I was troubled and at a loss to know how I
could accomplish their desires. An eminent person wrote to me as
follows: “Beware lest you distract your mind from God by satisfying the
wishes of those whose minds are engrossed in vanity. If you find anyone
whose mind is nobler than your own, you may justly distract your mind in
order to give peace to his. Otherwise, do not distract yourself, since
God is sufficient for His servants.” These words brought me instant
relief.
_Chapter concerning their Rules in Travel._
When a dervish chooses to travel, not to reside, he ought to observe the
following rules. In the first place, he must travel for God’s sake, not
for pleasure, and as he journeys outwardly, so he should flee inwardly
from his sensual affections; and he must always keep himself in a state
of purity and not neglect his devotions; and his object in travelling
must be either pilgrimage or war (against infidels) or to see a (holy)
site or to derive instruction or to seek knowledge or to visit a
venerable person, a Shaykh, or the tomb of a saint; otherwise his
journey will be faulty. And he cannot do without a patched frock and a
prayer-rug and a bucket and a rope and a pair of shoes (_kafsh_) or
clogs (_na`layn_) and a staff: the patched frock to cover his nakedness,
the prayer-rug to pray on, the bucket to cleanse himself with, and the
staff to protect him from attacks and for other purposes. Before
stepping on the prayer-rug he must put on his shoes or clogs in a state
of purity. If anyone carries other articles, for the sake of keeping the
Sunna (Apostolic custom), such as a comb and nail-scissors and a needle
and a little box of antimony (_mukḥula_), he does right. If, however,
anyone provides himself with more utensils than those which have been
mentioned, we have to consider in what station he is: if he is a novice
every article will be a shackle and a stumbling-block and a veil to him,
and will afford him the means of showing self-conceit, but if he is a
firmly grounded adept he may carry all these articles and more. I heard
the following story from Shaykh Abú Muslim Fáris b. Ghálib al-Fárisí.
“One day (he said) I paid a visit to Shaykh Abú Sa`íd b. Abi ´l-Khayr
Faḍlalláh b. Muḥammad. I found him sleeping on a couch with four
cushions (_takhtí chahár-bálish_), one of his legs thrown across the
other; and he was dressed in fine Egyptian linen (_diqqí Miṣrí_). My
garment was so dirty that it resembled leather, and my body was
emaciated by austerities. On looking at Abú Sa`íd a feeling of
scepticism overcame me. I said to myself: ‘He is a dervish, and so am I,
yet he is in all this luxury and I in this sore tribulation.’ He
immediately divined my thoughts and was aware of my vainglory. ‘O Abú
Muslim,’ said he, ‘in what díwán have you read that a self-conceited man
is a dervish? Since I see God in all things, God sets me on a throne,
and since you see yourself in everything, God keeps you in affliction:
my lot is contemplation, while yours is mortification. These are two
stations on the Way to God, but God is far aloof from them both, and a
dervish is dead to all stations and free from all states.’ On hearing
these words my senses forsook me, and the whole world grew dark in my
eyes. When I came to myself I repented, and he accepted my repentance.
Then I said: ‘O Shaykh, give me leave to depart, for I cannot bear the
sight of thee.’ He answered, ‘O Abú Muslim, you speak the truth;’ then
he quoted this verse:—
‘_That which my ear was unable to hear by report
My eye beheld actually all at once._’”
The travelling dervish must always observe the custom of the Apostle,
and when he comes to the house of a resident he should enter his
presence respectfully and greet him; and he should first take off the
shoe on his left foot, as the Apostle did; and when he puts his shoes
on, he should first put on the shoe belonging to his right foot; and he
should wash his right foot before his left; and he should perform two
bowings of the head by way of salutation (in prayer) and then occupy
himself with attending to the (religious) duties incumbent on dervishes.
He must not in any case interfere with the residents, or behave
immoderately towards anyone, or talk of the hardships which he may have
suffered in travelling, or discourse on theology, or tell anecdotes, or
recite traditions in company, for all this is a sign of self-conceit. He
must be patient when he is vexed by fools and must tolerate their
irksomeness for God’s sake, for in patience there are many blessings. If
residents or their servants bid him go with them to salute or visit the
townspeople, he must acquiesce if he can, but in his heart he ought to
dislike paying such marks of respect to worldlings, although he should
excuse the behaviour of his brethren who act thus. He must take care not
to trouble them by making any unreasonable demand, and he must not drag
them to the court of high officials with the purpose of seeking an idle
pleasure for himself. Travelling, as well as resident, dervishes must
always, in companionship, endeavour to please God, and must have a good
belief in each other, and not speak ill of any comrade face to face with
him or behind his back, because true mystics in regarding the act see
the Agent, and inasmuch as every human being, of whatever description he
may be—faulty or faultless, veiled or illuminated—belongs to God and is
His creature, to quarrel with a human act is to quarrel with the Divine
Agent.
_Chapter concerning their Rules in Eating._
Men cannot dispense with nourishment, but moral virtue requires that
they should not eat or drink in excess. Sháfi`í says: “He who thinks
about that which goes into his belly is worth only that which comes out
of it.” Nothing is more hurtful to a novice in Ṣúfiism than eating too
much. I have read in the Anecdotes that Abú Yazíd was asked why he
praised hunger so highly. He answered: “Because if Pharaoh had been
hungry he would not have said, ‘I am your Supreme Lord,’ and if Qárún
(Korah) had been hungry he would not have been rebellious.”
Tha`laba[172] was praised by all so long as he was hungry, but when he
ate his fill he displayed hypocrisy. Sahl b. `Abdalláh (al-Tustarí)
said: “In my judgment, a belly full of wine is better than one full of
lawful food.” On being asked the reason of this he said: “When a man’s
belly is filled with wine, his intellect is stupefied and the flame of
lust is quenched, and people are secure from his hand and tongue; but
when his belly is filled with lawful food he desires foolishness, and
his lust waxes great and his lower soul rises to seek her pleasures.”
The Shaykhs have said, describing the Ṣúfís: “They eat like sick men,
and sleep like shipwrecked men, and speak like one whose children have
died.”
Footnote 172:
See Bayḍáwí on Kor. ix, 76.
It is an obligatory rule that they should not eat alone, but should
unselfishly share their food with one another; and when seated at table
they should not be silent, and should begin by saying “In God’s name”;
and they should not put anything down or lift anything up in such a way
as to offend their comrades, and they should dip the first mouthful in
salt, and should deal fairly by their friends. Sahl b. `Abdalláh
(al-Tustarí) was asked about the meaning of the verse: “_Verily God
enjoins justice and beneficence_” (Kor. xvi, 92). He replied: “Justice
consists in dealing fairly with one’s friend in regard to a morsel of
food, and beneficence consists in deeming him to have a better claim to
that morsel than yourself.” My Shaykh used to say: “I am astonished at
the impostor who declares that he has renounced the world, and is
anxious about a morsel of food.” Furthermore, the Ṣúfí should eat with
his right hand and should look only at his own morsel, and while eating
he should not drink unless he is extremely thirsty, and if he drinks he
should drink only as much as will moisten his liver. He should not eat
large mouthfuls, and should chew his food well and not make haste;
otherwise he will be acting contrary to the custom of the Apostle, and
will probably suffer from indigestion (_tukhama_). When he has finished
eating, he should give praise to God and wash his hands. If two or three
or more persons belonging to a community of dervishes go to a dinner and
eat something without informing their brethren, according to some
Shaykhs this is unlawful and constitutes a breach of companionship, but
some hold it to be allowable when a number of persons act thus in union
with each other, and some allow it in the case of a single person, on
the ground that he is not obliged to deal fairly when he is alone but
when he is in company; consequently, being alone, he is relieved of the
obligations of companionship and is not responsible for his act. Now,
the most important principle in this matter is that the invitation of a
dervish should not be refused, and that the invitation of a rich man
should not be accepted. Dervishes ought not to go to the houses of rich
men or beg anything of them: such conduct is demoralizing for Ṣúfís,
because worldlings are not on confidential terms (_maḥram_) with the
dervish. Much wealth, however, does not make a man “rich” (_dunyá-dár_),
nor does little wealth make him “poor”. No one who acknowledges that
poverty is better than riches is “rich”, even though he be a king; and
anyone who disbelieves in poverty is “rich”, even though he be reduced
to want. When a dervish attends a party he should not constrain himself
either to eat or not to eat, but should behave in accordance with his
feelings at the time (_bar ḥukm-i waqt_). If the host is a congenial
person (_maḥram_), it is right that a married man (_muta´ahhil_) should
condone a fault; and if the host is uncongenial, it is not allowable to
go to his house. But in any case it is better not to commit a fault, for
Sahl b. `Abdalláh (al-Tustarí) says: “Backsliding is abasement”
(_al-zillat dhillat_).
_Chapter concerning their Rules in Walking._
God hath said: “_And the servants of the Merciful are they who walk on
the earth meekly_” (Kor. xxv, 64). The seeker of God, as he walks,
should know at each step he makes whether that step is against God or of
God: if it is against God, he must ask for pardon, and if it is of God,
he must persevere in it, that it may be increased. One day Dáwud Ṭá´í
had taken some medicine. They said to him: “Go into the court of this
house for a little while, in order that the good result of the medicine
may become apparent.” He replied: “I am ashamed that on the Day of
Judgment God should ask me why I made a few steps for my own selfish
pleasure. God Almighty hath said: ‘_And their feet shall bear witness of
that which they used to commit_’“ (Kor. xxxvi, 65). Therefore the
dervish should walk circumspectly, with his head bowed in meditation
(_muráqabat_), and not look in any direction but in front. If any person
meets him on the way, he must not draw himself back from him for the
sake of saving his dress, for all Moslems are clean, and their clothes
too; such an act is mere conceit and self-ostentation. If, however, the
person who meets him is an unbeliever, or manifestly filthy, he may turn
from him unobtrusively. And when he walks with a number of people, he
must not attempt to go in front of them, since that is an excess of
pride; nor must he attempt to go behind them, since that is an excess of
humility, and humility of which one is conscious is essentially pride.
He must keep his clogs and shoes as clean as he can by day in order that
God, through the blessings thereof, may keep his clothes (clean) by
night. And when one or more dervishes are with anyone, he should not
stop on the way (to talk) with any person, nor should he tell that
person to wait for him. He should walk quietly and should not hurry,
else his walk will resemble that of the covetous; nor should he walk
slowly, for then his walk will resemble that of the proud; and he should
take steps of the full length (_gám-i tamám nihad_). In fine, the walk
of the seeker of God should always be of such a description that if
anyone should ask him whither he is going he should be able to answer
decisively: ”_Verily, I am going to my Lord: He will direct me_” (Kor.
xxxvii, 97). Otherwise his walking is a curse to him, because right
steps (_khaṭawát_) proceed from right thoughts (_khaṭarát_): accordingly
if a man’s thoughts are concentrated on God, his feet will follow his
thoughts. It is related that Abú Yazíd said: “The inconsiderate walk
(_rawish-i bé muráqabat_) of a dervish is a sign that he is heedless (of
God), because all that exists is attained in two steps: one step away
from self-interest and the other step firmly planted on the commandments
of God.” The walk of the seeker is a sign that he is traversing a
certain distance, and since proximity to God is not a matter of
distance, what can the seeker do but cut off his feet in the abode of
rest?
_Chapter concerning their Rules of Sleeping in travel and at home._
There is a great difference of opinion among the Shaykhs on this
subject. Some hold that it is not permissible for a novice to sleep
except when he is overpowered by slumber, for the Apostle said: “Sleep
is the brother of Death,” and inasmuch as life is a benefit conferred by
God, whereas death is an affliction, the former must be more excellent
than the latter. And it is related that Shiblí said: “God looked upon me
and said, ‘He who sleeps is heedless, and he who is heedless is
veiled.’” Others, again, hold that a novice may sleep at will and even
constrain himself to sleep after having performed the Divine commands,
for the Apostle said: “The Pen does not record (evil actions) against
the sleeper until he awakes, or against the boy until he reaches
puberty, or against the madman until he recovers his wits.” When a man
is asleep, people are secure from his mischief and he is deprived of his
personal volition and his lower soul is prevented from gaining its
desires and the Recording Angels cease to write; his tongue makes no
false assertion and speaks no evil of the absent, and his will places no
hope in conceit and ostentation; “he does not possess for himself either
bane or boon or death or life or resurrection.” Hence Ibn `Abbás says:
“Nothing is more grievous to Iblís than a sinner’s sleep; whenever the
sinner sleeps, Iblís says, ‘When will he wake and rise up that he may
disobey God?’” This was a point of controversy between Junayd and `Alí
b. Sahl al-Iṣfahání. The latter wrote to Junayd a very fine epistle,
which I have heard, to the effect that sleep is heedlessness and rest is
a turning away from God: the lover must not sleep or rest by day or by
night, otherwise he will lose the object of his desire and will forget
himself and his state and will fail to attain to God, as God said to
David, “O David, he who pretends to love Me and sleeps when night covers
him is a liar.” Junayd said in his reply to that letter: “Our
wakefulness consists in our acts of devotion to God, whereas our sleep
is God’s act towards us: that which proceeds from God to us without our
will is more perfect than that which proceeds from us to God with our
will. Sleep is a gift which God bestows on those who love Him.” This
question depends on the doctrine of sobriety and intoxication, which has
been fully discussed above. It is remarkable that Junayd, who was
himself a “sober” man, here supports intoxication. Seemingly, he was
enraptured at the time when he wrote and his temporary state may have
expressed itself by his tongue; or, again, it may be that the opposite
is the case and that sleep is actually sobriety, while wakefulness is
actually intoxication, because sleep is an attribute of humanity, and a
man is “sober” so long as he is in the shadow of his attributes:
wakefulness, on the other hand, is an attribute of God, and when a man
transcends his own attribute he is enraptured. I have met with a number
of Shaykhs who agree with Junayd in preferring sleep to wakefulness,
because the visions of the saints and of most of the apostles occurred
during sleep. And the Apostle said: “Verily, God takes pride in the
servant who sleeps while he prostrates himself in prayer; and He says to
His angels, ‘Behold My servant, whose spirit is in the abode of secret
conversation (_najwá_) while his body is on the carpet of worship.’” The
Apostle also said: “Whoever sleeps in a state of purification, his
spirit is permitted to circumambulate the Throne and prostrate itself
before God.” I have read in the Anecdotes that Sháh Shujá` of Kirmán
kept awake for forty years. One night he fell asleep and saw God, and
afterwards he used always to sleep in hope of seeing the same vision.
This is the meaning of the verse of Qays of the Banú `Ámir[173]—
“_Truly I wish to sleep, although I am not drowsy,
That perchance thy beloved image may encounter mine._”
Footnote 173:
Generally known as Majnún, the lover of Laylá. See Brockelmann, i, 48.
Other Shaykhs whom I have seen agree with `Alí b. Sahl in preferring
wakefulness to sleep, because the apostles received their revelations
and the saints their miracles while they were awake. One of the Shaykhs
says: “If there were any good in sleep there would be sleep in
Paradise,” i.e., if sleep were the cause of love and proximity to God,
it would follow that there must be sleep in Paradise, which is the
dwelling-place of proximity; since neither sleep nor any veil is in
Paradise, we know that sleep is a veil. Those who are fond of subtleties
(_arbáb-i láṭá´if_) say that when Adam fell asleep in Paradise Eve came
forth from his left side, and Eve was the source of all his afflictions.
They say also that when Abraham told Ishmael that he had been ordered in
a dream to sacrifice him, Ishmael replied: “This is the punishment due
to one who sleeps and forgets his beloved. If you had not fallen asleep
you would not have been commanded to sacrifice your son.” It is related
that Shiblí every night used to place in front of him a bowl of salt
water and a needle for applying collyrium, and whenever he was about to
fall asleep he would dip the needle in the salt water and draw it along
his eyelids. I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí, have met with a spiritual
director who used to sleep after finishing the performance of his
obligatory acts of devotion; and I have seen Shaykh Aḥmad Samarqandí,
who was living at Bukhárá: during forty years he had never slept at
night, but he used to sleep a little in the daytime. This question turns
on the view taken of life and death. Those who prefer death to life must
prefer sleep to waking, while those who prefer life to death must prefer
waking to sleep. Merit belongs, not to the man who forces himself to
keep awake, but to the man who is kept awake. The Apostle, whom God
chose and whom He raised to the highest rank, did not force himself
either to sleep or to wake. God commanded him, saying: “_Rise and pray
during the night, except a small part: half thereof or less_” (Kor.
lxxiii, 2-3). Similarly, merit does not belong to the man who forces
himself to sleep, but only to the man who is put to sleep. The Men of
the Cave did not constrain themselves to sleep or to wake, but God threw
slumber upon them and nourished them without their will. When a man
attains to such a degree that his will no longer exists, and his hand is
withdrawn from everything, and his thoughts are averted from all except
God, it matters not whether he is asleep or awake: in either case he is
full of honour. Now, as regards the sleep of the novice, he ought to
deem that his first sleep is his last, and repent of his sins and
satisfy all who have a claim against him; and he ought to perform a
comely purification and sleep on his right side, facing the _qibla_; and
having set his worldly affairs in order, he ought to give thanks for the
blessing of Islam, and make a vow that if he should wake again he will
not return to sin. One who has set his affairs in order while he is
awake has no fear of sleep or of death. A well-known story is told of a
certain spiritual director, that he used to visit an Imám who was
engrossed in maintaining his dignity and was a prey to self-conceit, and
that he used to say to him: “O So-and-so, you must die.” This offended
the Imám, for “why (he said) should this beggar be always repeating
these words to me?” One day he answered: “I will begin to-morrow.” Next
day when the spiritual director came in the Imám said to him: “O
So-and-so, you must die.” He put down his prayer-rug and spread it out,
and laid his head on it and exclaimed, “I am dead,” and immediately
yielded up his soul. The Imám took warning, and perceived that this
spiritual director had been bidding him prepare for death, as he himself
had done. My Shaykh used to enjoin his disciples not to sleep unless
overpowered by slumber, and when they had once awaked not to fall asleep
again, since a second sleep is unlawful and unprofitable to those who
seek God.
_Chapter concerning their Rules in Speech and Silence._
God hath commanded His servants to speak well, e.g. to acknowledge His
lordship and to praise Him and to call mankind to His court. Speech is a
great blessing conferred on Man by God, and thereby is Man distinguished
from all other things. Some interpreters of the text, “_We have honoured
the sons of Adam_” (Kor. xvii, 72), explain it as meaning “by the gift
of speech”. Nevertheless, in speech there are also great evils, for the
Apostle said: “The worst that I fear for my people is the tongue.” In
short, speech is like wine: it intoxicates the mind, and those who begin
to have a taste for it cannot abstain from it. Accordingly, the Ṣúfís,
knowing that speech is harmful, never spoke except when it was
necessary, i.e. they considered the beginning and end of their
discourse; if the whole was for God’s sake, they spoke; otherwise they
kept silence, because they firmly believed that God knows our secret
thoughts (cf. Kor. xliii, 80). The Apostle said: “He who keeps silence
is saved.” In silence there are many advantages and spiritual favours
(_futúḥ_), and in speech there are many evils. Some Shaykhs have
preferred silence to speech, while others have set speech above silence.
Among the former is Junayd, who said: “Expressions are wholly
pretensions, and where realities are established pretensions are idle.”
Sometimes it is excusable not to speak although one has the will to do
so, i.e. fear becomes an excuse for not speaking in spite of one’s
having the will and the power to speak; and refusal to speak of God does
not impair the essence of gnosis. But at no time is a man excused for
mere pretension devoid of reality, which is the principle of hypocrites.
Pretension without reality is hypocrisy, and reality without pretension
is sincerity, because “he who is grounded in eloquence needs no tongue
to communicate with his Lord”. Expressions only serve to inform another
than God, for God Himself requires no explanation of our circumstances,
and others than God are not worth so much that we should occupy
ourselves with them. This is corroborated by the saying of Junayd, “He
who knows God is dumb,” for in actual vision (_`iyán_) exposition
(_bayán_) is a veil. It is related that Shiblí rose up in Junayd’s
meeting-place and cried aloud, “O my object of desire!” and pointed to
God. Junayd said: “O Abú Bakr, if God is the object of your desire, why
do you point to Him, who is independent of this? And if the object of
your desire is another, God knows what you say: why do you speak
falsely?” Shiblí asked God to pardon him for having uttered those words.
Those who put speech above silence argue that we are commanded by God to
set forth our circumstances, for the pretension subsists in the reality,
and _vice versâ_. If a man continues for a thousand years to know God in
his heart and soul, but has not confessed that he knows God, he is
virtually an infidel unless his silence has been due to compulsion. God
has bidden all believers give Him thanks and praise and rehearse His
bounties, and He has promised to answer the prayers of those who invoke
Him. One of the Shaykhs has said that whoever does not declare his
spiritual state is without any spiritual state, since the state
proclaims itself.
“_The tongue of the state_ (lisán al-ḥál) _is more eloquent than my
tongue,
And my silence is the interpreter of my question_.”
I have read in the Anecdotes that one day when Abú Bakr Shiblí was
walking in the Karkh quarter of Baghdád he heard an impostor saying:
“Silence is better than speech.” Shiblí replied: “Thy silence is better
than thy speech, but my speech is better than my silence, because thy
speech is vanity and thy silence is an idle jest, whereas my silence is
modesty and my speech is knowledge.” I, `Alí b. `Uthmán al-Jullábí,
declare that there are two kinds of speech and two kinds of silence:
speech is either real or unreal, and silence is either fruition or
forgetfulness. If one speaks truth, his speech is better than his
silence, but if one speaks falsehood, his silence is better than his
speech. “He who speaks hits the mark or misses it, but he who is made to
speak is preserved from transgression.” Thus Iblís said, “_I am better
than he_” (Kor. xxxviii, 77), but Adam was made to say, “_O Lord, we
have done wrong unto ourselves_” (Kor. vii, 22). The missionaries
(_dá`iyán_) of this sect are permitted or compelled to speak, and shame
or helplessness strikes them dumb: “he whose silence is shame, his
speech is life.” Their speech is the result of vision, and speech
without vision appears to them despicable. They prefer silence to speech
so long as they are with themselves, but when they are beside themselves
their words are written on the hearts of men. Hence that spiritual
director said: “He whose silence to God is gold, his speech to another
than God is gilt.” The seeker of God, who is absorbed in servantship,
must be silent, in order that the adept, who proclaims Lordship, may
speak, and by his utterances may captivate the hearts of his disciples.
The rule in speaking is not to speak unless bidden, and then only of the
thing that is bidden; and the rule in silence is not to be ignorant or
satisfied with ignorance or forgetful. The disciple must not interrupt
the speech of spiritual directors, or let his personal judgment intrude
therein, or use far-fetched expressions in answering them. He must never
tell a lie, or speak ill of the absent, or offend any Moslem with that
tongue which has made the profession of faith and acknowledged the unity
of God. He must not address dervishes by their bare names or speak to
them until they ask a question. It behoves the dervish, when he is
silent, not to be silent in falsehood, and when he speaks, to speak only
the truth. This principle has many derivatives and innumerable
refinements, but I will not pursue the subject, lest my book should
become too long.
_Chapter concerning their Rules in Asking._
God hath said: “_They ask not men with importunity_” (Kor. ii, 274). Any
one of them who asks should not be repulsed, for God said to the
Apostle: “_Do not drive away the beggar_” (Kor. xciii, 10). As far as
possible they should beg of God only, for begging involves turning away
from God to another, and when a man turns away from God there is danger
that God may leave him in that predicament. I have read that a certain
worldling said to Rábi`a `Adawiyya[174]: “O Rábi`a, ask something of me
that I may procure what you wish.” “O sir,” she replied, “I am ashamed
to ask anything of the Creator of the world; how, then, should I not be
ashamed to ask anything of a fellow-creature?” It is related that in the
time of Abú Muslim, the head of the (`Abbásid) propaganda, an innocent
dervish was seized on suspicion of theft, and was imprisoned at Chahár
Ṭáq.[175] On the same night Abú Muslim dreamed that the Apostle came to
him and said: “God has sent me to tell you that one of His friends is in
your prison. Arise and set him free.” Abú Muslim leapt from his bed, and
ran with bare head and feet to the prison gate, and gave orders to
release the dervish, and begged his pardon and bade him ask a boon. “O
prince,” he replied, “one whose Master rouses Abú Muslim at midnight,
and sends him to deliver a poor dervish from affliction—how should that
one ask a boon of others?” Abú Muslim began to weep, and the dervish
went on his way. Some, however, hold that a dervish may beg of his
fellow-creatures, since God says: “_They ask not men with importunity_,”
i.e. they may ask but not importune. The Apostle begged for the sake of
providing for his companions, and he said to us: “Seek your wants from
those whose faces are comely.”
Footnote 174:
_Nafaḥát_, No. 578; Ibn Khallikán, No. 230.
Footnote 175:
A village, mentioned by Ibn al-Athír (x, 428, 24), in the vicinity of
Baghdád.
The Ṣúfí Shaykhs consider begging to be permissible in three cases.
Firstly, with the object of freeing one’s mind from preoccupation, for,
as they have said, we should not attach so much importance to two cakes
of bread that we should spend the whole day and night in expecting them;
and when we are starving we want nothing else of God, because no anxiety
is so engrossing as anxiety on account of food. Therefore, when the
disciple of Shaqíq visited Báyazíd, and in answer to Báyazíd’s question
as to the state of Shaqíq informed him that he was entirely disengaged
from mankind, and was putting all his trust in God, Báyazíd said: “When
you return to Shaqíq, tell him to beware of again testing God with two
loaves: if he is hungry, let him beg of his fellow-creatures and have
done with the cant of trust in God.” Secondly, it is permissible to beg
with the object of training the lower soul. The Ṣúfís beg in order that
they may endure the humiliation of begging, and may perceive what is
their worth in the eyes of other men, and may not be proud. When Shiblí
came to Junayd, Junayd said to him: “O Abú Bakr, your head is full of
conceit, because you are the son of the Caliph’s principal chamberlain
and the governor of Sámarrá. No good will come from you until you go to
the market and beg of everyone whom you see, that you may know your true
worth.” Shiblí obeyed. He begged in the market for three years, with
ever decreasing success. One day, having gone through the whole market
and got nothing, he returned to Junayd and told him. Junayd said: “Now,
Abú Bakr, you see that you have no worth in the eyes of men: do not fix
your heart on them. This matter (i.e. begging) is for the sake of
discipline, not for the sake of profit.” It is related that Dhu ´l-Nún
the Egyptian said: “I had a friend who was in accord with God. After his
death I saw him in a dream, and asked him how God had dealt with him. He
answered that God had forgiven him. I asked him: ‘On account of what
virtue?’ He replied that God raised him to his feet and said: ‘My
servant, you suffered with patience much contumely and tribulation from
base and avaricious men, to whom you stretched out your hands: therefore
I forgive you.’” Thirdly, they beg from mankind because of their
reverence for God. They recognize that all worldly possessions belong to
God, and they regard all mankind as His agents, from whom—not from God
Himself—they beg anything that is for the benefit of the lower soul; and
in the eyes of one who beholds his own want, the servant that makes a
petition to an agent is more reverent and obedient than he that makes a
petition to God. Therefore, their begging from another is a sign of
presence and of turning towards God, not a sign of absence and of
turning away from Him. I have read that Yaḥyá b. Mu`ádh (al-Rází) had a
daughter, who one day asked her mother for something. “Ask it of God,”
said the mother. “I am ashamed,” the girl replied, “to ask a material
want from Him. What you give me is His too and is my allotted portion.”
The rules of begging are as follows: If you beg unsuccessfully you
should be more cheerful than when you succeed, and you should not regard
any human creature as coming between God and yourself. You should not
beg of women or market-folk (_aṣḥáb-i aswáq_), and you should not tell
your secret to anyone unless you are sure that his money is lawful. As
far as possible you should beg unselfishly, and should not use the
proceeds for worldly show and for housekeeping, or convert them into
property. You should live in the present, and let no thought of the
morrow enter your mind, else you will incur everlasting perdition. You
should not make God a springe to catch alms, and you should not display
piety in order that more alms may be given to you on account of your
piety. I once met an old and venerable Ṣúfí, who had lost his way in the
desert and came, hunger-stricken, into the market-place at Kúfa with a
sparrow perched on his hand, crying: “Give me something for the sake of
this sparrow!” The people asked him why he said this. He replied: “It is
impossible that I should say ‘Give me something for God’s sake!’ One
must employ the intercession of an insignificant creature to obtain
worldly goods.“
This is but a small part of the obligations involved in begging. I have
abridged the topic for fear of being tedious.
_Chapter concerning their Rules in Marriage and Celibacy and matters
connected therewith._
God hath said: ”_They_ (women) _are a garment unto you and ye are a
garment unto them_” (Kor. ii, 183). And the Apostle said: “Marry, that
ye may multiply; for I will vaunt you against all other nations on the
Day of Resurrection, even in respect of the still-born.” And he said
also: “The women who bring the greatest blessing are they who cost least
to maintain, whose faces are comeliest, and whose dowries are cheapest.”
Marriage is permitted to all men and women, and is obligatory on those
who cannot abstain from what is unlawful, and is a _sunna_ (i.e.
sanctioned by the custom of the Apostle) for those who are able to
support a family. Some of the Ṣúfí Shaykhs hold marriage to be desirable
as a means of quelling lust, and acquisition (of sustenance) to be
desirable as a means of freeing the mind from anxiety. Others hold that
the object of marriage is procreation; for, if the child dies before its
father, it will intercede for him (before God), and if the father dies
first, the child will remain to pray for him.[176] The Apostle said:
“Women are married for four things: wealth, nobility, beauty, and
religion. Do ye take one that is religious, for, after Islam, there is
nothing that profits a man so much as a believing and obedient wife who
gladdens him whenever he looks on her.” And the Apostle said: “Satan is
with the solitary,” because Satan decks out lust and presents it to
their minds. No companionship is equal in reverence and security to
marriage, when husband and wife are congenial and well-suited to each
other, and no torment and anxiety is so great as an uncongenial wife.
Therefore the dervish must, in the first place, consider what he is
doing and picture in his mind the evils of celibacy and of marriage, in
order that he may choose the state of which he can more easily overcome
the evils. The evils of celibacy are two: (1) the neglect of an
Apostolic custom, (2) the fostering of lust in the heart and the danger
of falling into unlawful ways. The evils of marriage are also two: (1)
the preoccupation of the mind with other than God, (2) the distraction
of the body for the sake of sensual pleasure. The root of this matter
lies in retirement and companionship. Marriage is proper for those who
prefer to associate with mankind, and celibacy is an ornament to those
who seek retirement from mankind. The Apostle said: “Go: the recluses
(_al-mufarridún_) have preceded you.” And Ḥasan of Baṣra says: “The
lightly burdened shall be saved and the heavily laden shall perish.”
Ibráhím Khawwáṣ relates the following story: “I went to a certain
village to visit a reverend man who lived there. When I entered his
house I saw that it was clean, like a saint’s place of worship. In its
two corners two niches (_miḥráb_) had been made; the old man was seated
in one of them, and in the other niche an old woman was sitting, clean
and bright: both had become weak through much devotion. They showed
great joy at my coming, and I stayed with them for three days. When I
was about to depart I asked the old man, ‘What relation is this chaste
woman to you?’ He answered, ‘She is my cousin and my wife.’ I said,
‘During these three days your intercourse with one another has been very
like that of strangers.’ ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘it has been so for five and
sixty years.’ I asked him the cause of this. He replied: ‘When we were
young we fell in love, but her father would not give her to me, for he
had discovered our fondness for each other. I bore this sorrow for a
long while, but on her father’s death my father, who was her uncle, gave
me her hand. On the wedding-night she said to me: “You know what
happiness God has bestowed upon us in bringing us together and taking
all fear away from our hearts. Let us therefore to-night refrain from
sensual passion and trample on our desires and worship God in
thanksgiving for this happiness.” I said, “It is well.” Next night she
bade me do the same. On the third night I said, “Now we have given
thanks for two nights for your sake; to-night let us worship God for my
sake.” Five and sixty years have passed since then, and we have never
touched one another, but spend all our lives in giving thanks for our
happiness.’” Accordingly, when a dervish chooses companionship, it
behoves him to provide his wife with lawful food and pay her dowry out
of lawful property, and not indulge in sensual pleasure so long as any
obligation towards God, or any part of His commandments, is unfulfilled.
And when he performs his devotions and is about to go to bed, let him
say, as in secret converse with God: “O Lord God, Thou hast mingled lust
with Adam’s clay in order that the world may be populated, and Thou in
Thy knowledge hast willed that I should have this intercourse. Cause it
to be for the sake of two things: firstly, to guard that which is
unlawful by means of that which is lawful; and secondly, vouchsafe to me
a child, saintly and acceptable, not one who will divert my thoughts
from Thee.” It is related that a son was born to Sahl b. `Abdalláh
al-Tustarí. Whenever the child asked his mother for food, she used to
bid him ask God, and while he went to the niche (_miḥráb_) and bowed
himself in prayer, she used secretly to give him what he wanted, without
letting him know that his mother had given it to him. Thus he grew
accustomed to turn unto God. One day he came back from school when his
mother was absent, and bowed himself in prayer. God caused the thing
that he sought to appear before him. When his mother came in she asked,
“Where did you get this?” He answered, “From the place whence it comes
always.”
Footnote 176:
Here a story is told of the Caliph `Umar, who asked Umm Kulthúm, the
Prophet’s granddaughter, in marriage from her father `Alí.
The practice of an Apostolic rule of life must not lead the dervish to
seek worldly wealth and unlawful gain or preoccupy his heart, for the
dervish is ruined by the destruction of his heart, just as the rich man
is ruined by the destruction of his house and furniture; but the rich
man can repair his loss, while the dervish cannot. In our time it is
impossible for anyone to have a suitable wife, whose wants are not
excessive and whose demands are not unreasonable. Therefore many persons
have adopted celibacy and observe the Apostolic Tradition: “The best of
men in latter days will be those who are light of back,” i.e. who have
neither wife nor child. It is the unanimous opinion of the Shaykhs of
this sect that the best and most excellent Ṣúfís are the celibates, if
their hearts are uncontaminated and if their natures are not inclined to
sins and lusts. The vulgar, in gratifying their lusts, appeal to the
Apostle’s saying, that the three things he loved in the world were
scent, women, and prayer, and argue that since he loved women marriage
must be more excellent than celibacy. I reply: “The Apostle also said
that he had two trades, namely, poverty (_faqr_) and the spiritual
combat (_jihád_): why, then, do ye shun these things? If he loved that
(viz. marriage), this (viz. celibacy) was his trade. Your desires have a
greater propensity to the former, but it is absurd, on that ground, to
say that he loves what you desire. Anyone who follows his desires for
fifty years and supposes that he is following the practice of the
Apostle is in grave error.” A woman was the cause of the first calamity
that overtook Adam in Paradise, and also of the first quarrel that
happened in this world, i.e. the quarrel of Abel and Cain. A woman was
the cause of the punishment inflicted on the two angels (Hárút and
Márút); and down to the present day all mischiefs, worldly and religious
have been caused by women. After God had preserved me for eleven years
from the dangers of matrimony, it was my destiny to fall in love with
the description of a woman whom I had never seen, and during a whole
year my passion so absorbed me that my religion was near being ruined,
until at last God in His bounty gave protection to my wretched heart and
mercifully delivered me. In short, Ṣúfiism was founded on celibacy; the
introduction of marriage brought about a change. There is no flame of
lust that cannot be extinguished by strenuous effort, because, whatever
vice proceeds from yourself, you possess the instrument that will remove
it: another is not necessary for that purpose. Now the removal of lust
may be effected by two things, one of which involves self-constraint
(_takalluf_) while the other lies outside the sphere of human action and
mortification. The former is hunger, the latter is an agitating fear or
a true love, which is collected by the dispersion of (sensual) thoughts:
a love which extends its empire over the different parts of the body and
divests all the senses of their sensual quality. Aḥmad Ḥammádí of
Sarakhs, who went to Transoxania and lived there, was a venerable man.
On being asked whether he desired to marry, he answered: “No, because I
am either absent from myself or present with myself: when I am absent, I
have no consciousness of the two worlds; and when I am present, I keep
my lower soul in such wise that when it gets a loaf of bread it thinks
that it has got a thousand houris. It is a great thing to occupy the
mind: let it be anxious about whatsoever you will.” Others, again,
recommend that neither state (marriage or celibacy) should be regarded
with predilection, in order that we may see what the decree of Divine
providence will bring to light: if celibacy be our lot, we should strive
to be chaste, and if marriage be our destiny, we should comply with the
custom of the Apostle and strive to clear our hearts (of worldly
anxieties). When God ordains celibacy unto a man, his celibacy should be
like that of Joseph, who, although he was able to satisfy his desire for
Zulaykhá, turned away from her and busied himself with subduing his
passion and considering the vices of his lower soul at the moment when
Zulaykhá was alone with him. And if God ordains marriage unto a man, his
marriage should be like that of Abraham, who by reason of his absolute
confidence in God put aside all care for his wife; and when Sarah became
jealous he took Hagar and brought her to a barren valley and committed
her to the care of God. Accordingly, a man is not ruined by marriage or
by celibacy, but the mischief consists in asserting one’s will and in
yielding to one’s desires. The married man ought to observe the
following rules. He should not leave any act of devotion undone, or let
any “state” be lost or any “time” be wasted. He should be kind to his
wife and should provide her with lawful expenses, and he should not pay
court to tyrants and governors with the object of meeting her expenses.
He should behave thus, in order that, if a child is born, it may be such
as it ought to be. A well-known story is told of Aḥmad b. Ḥarb of
Níshápúr, that one day, when he was sitting with the chiefs and nobles
of Níshápúr who had come to offer their respects to him, his son entered
the room, drunk, playing a guitar, and singing, and passed by insolently
without heeding them. Aḥmad, perceiving that they were put out of
countenance, said: “What is the matter?” They replied: “We are ashamed
that this lad should pass by you in such a state.” Aḥmad said: “He is
excusable. One night my wife and I partook of some food that was brought
to us from a neighbour’s house. That same night this son was begotten,
and we fell asleep and let our devotions go. Next morning we inquired of
our neighbour as to the source of the food that he had sent to us, and
we found that it came from a wedding-feast in the house of a government
official.” The following rules should be observed by the celibate. He
must not see what is improper to see or think what is improper to think,
and he must quench the flames of lust by hunger and guard his heart from
this world and from preoccupation with phenomena, and he must not call
the desire of his lower soul “knowledge” or “inspiration”, and he must
not make the wiles (_bu ´l-`ajabí_) of Satan a pretext (for sin). If he
acts thus he will be approved in Ṣúfiism.